Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 29th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, sir, that is in order.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Then I don't need to speak any further. I think it speaks for itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is there further debate?

I'm going to have a vote here and I'm not going to stall any longer.

You can read the motion. Does everyone understand the motion?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Would you like me to read it out loud?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Sure. Perhaps you'd better.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I'll read it again, Mr. Chairman.

I move that the committee undertake a study on the subject matter of the sections of Bill C-45 that fall within the mandate of this committee, namely, part 4, division 16, and report its findings to the House no later than Monday, November 5, 2012.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Debate?

Ms. Sims.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I'm going to speak in support of this motion. We have seen too much change in the area of immigration, and to have this buried in a budget bill just doesn't seem right.

We have a standing committee. The job of the standing committee is to examine, to provide due diligence, and then to make brilliant amendments to make the legislation serve Canadians in a better way. I think this proposal being put forward reflects the proposal I made in the House today when I tried to seek unanimous consent...and I was so surprised when my colleagues across the aisle didn't see in their magnanimous hearts to give me that unanimous consent so that it could come to this committee and be debated.

Mr. Chair, one of the things I'm finding is that when we're looking at changes to legislation, when we're looking at making changes to one of our key pillars, our immigration policy, which is our nation-building policy of the past, when we contemplate any changes, it behooves us to take the time to very deliberately examine this, and it also provides us, the legislators, with an opportunity to examine and make amendments.

I'm very conscious of the time and that we have our guest, who we all want to hear more from. I'm not going to say more, though I could speak for 10 hours on this and the need for us to provide time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Leung.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, let me preface this by saying that I have been a practising public accountant for just shy of a decade, as has Ms. Bateman. When you come to debate something that is budget oriented, you need to look at it in its totality. You can't separate out the departments; it's built up into a total budget. That's how budgets are formulated. That's how budgets are debated: in a specific budget committee. Generally, that is the finance committee, whether you're in a corporation or a non-profit organization, because you're dealing purely with monetary issues. It is at the committee levels, such as these standing committees, that we debate policies and so on.

I don't see how breaking this up makes any sense, really, and besides, we're debating Bill C-43 here, not Bill C-45. Therefore, I will speak against this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is there further debate?

Mr. Dykstra, and then we have Mr. Menegakis.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I know that Mr. Lamoureux put this motion forward and had hoped to deal with it at his first opportunity, so I appreciate that he's kept his word on that, and Mr. Regan is following right up.

There are a couple of things here. First, this isn't the budget bill; this is a budget implementation act. As most of us know, that usually, almost always.... There have been some circumstances under a previous government where it wasn't always the case that we got a fall update and the budget implementation act, in terms of the implementation of the budget, which passed in the spring and which we all spent a long time in the House of Commons voting on, debating, and discussing. The finance committee spent over 50 hours dealing with it. Witness after witness after witness came forward to discuss what was in the original budget.

We're now dealing with the budget implementation act; it is actually not an issue for us to determine or decide here at this committee. We focus on citizenship, immigration, and multiculturalism. The times when we respond to issues of budget, generally speaking, are when we are working towards implementation. To that end, the finance minister said early last week that there would be the potential for nine committees to study pieces of the budget implementation act, but that is currently something the finance committee is going to be dealing with. They are the ones who are going to receive the budget. They are the ones who are going to make the determination for where the pieces of the budget will go, in terms of review, in terms of study.

I would argue that this is a very premature motion in regard to the fact that we haven't even actually had the second vote. We haven't had second reading and the vote on the budget at second reading, so I do think this is premature. I think we've made it clear as a government that we're going to send it to the finance committee. The finance committee is going to have the opportunity to review. They're going to have the opportunity to vote. They are going to put a motion forward.

I'm sure that if both Ms. Sims and Mr. Regan want to, they can advise their counterparts who sit on the finance committee that that is the place, and obviously the chance and the opportunity, for them to vote on this, and to do what I think is not dissimilar to what is suggested here. We would then get the opportunity as a committee to study portions of the budget implementation act that actually have something to do with the work we are doing, both as a government and as a committee, in terms of legislation that has been moved forward.

But until such time as the finance committee has had that opportunity, I don't think the finance committee—or any other committee, for that matter—would appreciate it if we were to indulge in their work and have instructions sent to them as to what they should do with respect to their committee work.

I think we are a pretty good committee. I know that occasionally we have a bit of a tiff, but it happens. Overall, I think we're a pretty good committee.

I do think that we wouldn't subject ourselves to this kind of discussion at other committees; in fact, what we would do is stick to the agenda at hand. Mr. Brouwer was here today for his presentation. The motion has been moved during his time, during his hour of presentation on a bill we're dealing with here. Based on this being brought up, we're losing that opportunity for him to respond to the questions that have been brought forward.

Chair, I do believe that, number one, the motion is indeed premature. Indeed, if the mover would like to withdraw the motion, that would be great. If not, on this side of the committee table, we'll be voting against it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The motion is in order, but Mr. Menegakis has further debate.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

In most parts, I think Mr. Dykstra articulated quite eloquently and much better than I would what I wanted to say.

As we all know, the budget was introduced on March 29, Mr. Chair. I don't know of another budget in the history of Canada that has had this much debate—as much as the first budget implementation act had, and the amount of debate we are getting now. In fact, Mr. Chair, I might add that the member from Burnaby—New Westminster, a member of the opposition, spoke for 13 straight hours on the budget, and the leader of the opposition just last week spoke for 45 minutes.

I might add that during debate in the House on this second phase of the budget implementation, the “BIA 2”, there wasn't any question on the immigration section that pertains to the electronic travel authorization. This is clearly an issue to be dealt with by the finance committee.

I totally concur with that approach. It's premature to come here at this time, and it certainly does not pay any respect to the witness who is here before us, nor is it relevant to the discussion on Bill C-43 that we're having. These are two different bills, Bills C-43 and C-45.

So I cannot in good conscience support the honourable member's motion. I will conclude with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I see no further requests for debate, so we will have a vote on the motion.

(Motion negatived)

To return to Bill C-43, Mr. Leung, you have about three and a half minutes.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thanks to our witness, Andrew.

Thank you for your tenacity in appearing here for the third time.

Many of us who were not born here came to Canada for a number of reasons, either to seek a new land or to seek the new type of freedom that is available to us. At the time we come here, we appreciate what this country has to offer to us. I would say that part of it is certainly peace, order, and good governance. These are the broad, general principles of those of us who live in this country.

In this particular case, you have identified some specific cases of fairly extreme violent acts. Yes, we certainly remove these people who are not Canadian citizens—I'd say regardless of the time they have lived here—if they haven't committed themselves to being Canadian citizens; basically, this is what this act addresses.

But I assume that in general you agree with the broader provisions of Bill C-43. Let's set all those extreme cases aside. Would you not agree with the broad principle of what Bill C-43is trying to achieve?

[Andrew Brouwer]

I'm not sure what you would describe the broad principles as being. From my perspective—

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Well, the broad principle that we—

[Andrew Brouwer]

Can I answer?

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

I'm just asking a question.

[Andrew Brouwer]

Yes, you've asked me whether or not I agree with the broad principles of Bill C-43.

When I read Bill C-43, the broad principles that I see being articulated there are quick deportation, denial of access to consideration of circumstances of cases, no humanitarian consideration, no ministerial relief—quick removal with no consideration of context.

If you're asking me whether I agree with those broad principles, I absolutely do not. I believe in fairness and justice, and I believe that most members of this committee do, too.

Unfortunately, this bill isn't about those. This bill is about stripping away access to at least a chance to appeal to humanitarian and compassionate motives; to at least raise the considerations and get a decision. For those individuals who are currently eligible, if they refuse, that's the end of the day.

A question was raised, I think by Mr. Weston, about the cost and the endless delays, which is something we hear about frequently. I'd like to point out that even under the current system, if those people who are found inadmissible on criminal grounds and who get to the IAD and are lucky enough to get a stay of their deportation commit even one more offence during that five-year stay, they're out; that's the end.

So all we're talking about here is one chance for an independent, impartial person to take a look at all the circumstances prior to the deportation. If a person shows that they can't actually abide by those conditions, and they commit another crime, that's it. That's harsh for those individuals, and there are cases in which I would say even that is too much, but let's understand what we're dealing with now: this act would take even that away.

From my perspective, no, that's wrong.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm afraid the time has expired.

Mr. Brouwer, I thank you for taking the time to visit with us this afternoon. Thank you for your comments.

The meeting is adjourned.